I just got it: allegiance to sentimentality: That is the single most destructive force in Christianity in America. The flag, the politics, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights: all of...

fiatlux

That is the single most destructive force in Christianity in America. The flag, the politics, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights: all of it far from the "kingdom of heaven." Christians have no "unalienable rights": the world does!

Theo Loc: Within 1000 miles of Tampa, Florida

fiatlux wrote:

That is the single most destructive force in Christianity in America. The flag, the politics, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights: all of it far from the "kingdom of heaven." Christians have no "unalienable rights": the world does!

Name a Christian who ever claimed only Christians have inalienable rights!

fiatlux

Theo wrote:

Name a Christian who ever claimed only Christians have inalienable rights!

I said the reverse is true: get some spectacles.

Theo Loc: Within 1000 miles of Tampa, Florida

fiatlux wrote:

I said the reverse is true: get some spectacles.

fiatlux wrote:

Christians have no "unalienable rights": the world does!

How about diagraming your sentence, and see how you come up with "the reverse" you now claim.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Theo wrote:

How about diagraming your sentence, and see how you come up with "the reverse" you now claim.

double entry :oops:

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Theo wrote:

How about diagraming your sentence, and see how you come up with "the reverse" you now claim.

Theo, I believe you had better re-read her sentence again. It doesn't need to be diagrammed...just understood. BTW, she wrote 'unalienable,' not 'inalienable,' although each mean pretty much the same thing. :wink:

Theo Loc: Within 1000 miles of Tampa, Florida

slatten49 wrote:

Theo, I believe you had better re-read her sentence again. It doesn't need to be diagrammed...just understood. BTW, she wrote 'unalienable,' not 'inalienable,' although each mean pretty much the same thing. :wink:

Webster defines "Unalienable" - INALIENABLE.

I was not quoting, I was asking a question using my own vocabulary specifically to point out the non-quote aspect.

fiatlux

Theo wrote:

Webster defines "Unalienable" - INALIENABLE.

I was not quoting, I was asking a question using my own vocabulary specifically to point out the non-quote aspect.

You said, "Name a Christian who ever claimed only Christians have inalienable rights!"
I said, "Christians have no "unalienable rights": the world does!"
Do u now see the difference?

Theo Loc: Within 1000 miles of Tampa, Florida

fiatlux wrote:

You said, "Name a Christian who ever claimed only Christians have inalienable rights!"
I said, "Christians have no "unalienable rights": the world does!"
Do u now see the difference?

Never didn't.

fiatlux

Theo wrote:

Never didn't.

Huh?

Theo Loc: Within 1000 miles of Tampa, Florida

fiatlux wrote:

Huh?

You wrote "Do u now see the difference?"

I wrote "I never didn't see the difference."

That means "I always did see the difference."

"Never didn't" is a double negative, which becomes a positive in the message.

This was in response to your application of time to an event - "Do you now..." which requires my response relative to a "now event." I never did not see the difference.
Or, there was never a "now" in which I did not see the difference.

Your inquiry of "huh?" was very articulate - see what you made me do?

fiatlux

Theo wrote:

You wrote "Do u now see the difference?"... (show quote)

It would have been easier just to say that you agree with me.

Theo Loc: Within 1000 miles of Tampa, Florida

fiatlux wrote:

It would have been easier just to say that you agree with me.

You mean capitulate?

I do NOT agree with you.

You have stated your premise incorrectly.

fiatlux wrote:

I said, "Christians have no "unalienable rights": the world does!"

Your statement tells me that while the world has
"un"allienable right, Christians do not. That is the meaning inherent in the language "Christians have no unalienable rights."

If in fact, you meant to say "Inalienable rights are not limited to Christians, but are accessible to the world," I would agree with your assessment.

But that is not what you said.

fiatlux

Theo wrote:

Your statement tells me that while the world has
"un"allienable right, Christians do not. That is the meaning inherent in the language "Christians have no unalienable rights."

If in fact, you meant to say "Inalienable rights are not limited to Christians, but are accessible to the world," I would agree with your assessment.

But that is not what you said.

Wow, okay. Let me try to sort this out. Under the Constitution, very slowly its citizens were realizing their un(in)alienable rights "to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Under the Constitution, Christians were also granted these rights...but as pagan concepts, Christians rejected them. Unfortunately that is not the case. Instead, they rejoiced in this secular freedom, forgetting Christ. Is that clearer?

Theo Loc: Within 1000 miles of Tampa, Florida

fiatlux wrote:

Wow, okay. Let me try to sort this out. Under the Constitution, very slowly its citizens were realizing their un(in)alienable rights "to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Under the Constitution, Christians were also granted these rights...but as pagan concepts, Christians rejected them. Unfortunately that is not the case. Instead, they rejoiced in this secular freedom, forgetting Christ. Is that clearer?

Not only is it clearer, but again is incorrectly stated, even though it is not true. I am a Christian, and I never rejected those concepts,. nor did I forget Christ, so the generic inclusion of Christians is not correct. Specific Christians to whom this might apply, maybe, though I know of none personally.

Once more you interject with a statement that negates your previous statement. "Unfortunately that is not the case" references which part of your immediately previous statement? THAT is what is not clear, and THAT is what negates veracity this time.